User talk:Fenix down/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Phoenix club (sports)

Well done, once again good sense has been sacrificed for the sake of sentiment.90.194.228.58 (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Presumably your lack of response can be interpreted as an admission of guilt in this matter.90.194.228.58 (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Or just that I hadn't seen your message. The article let makes clear there is no formal definition of a phoenix club. As such each club listed needs reliable sources using that term. The sources presented for AFC Wimbledon are reliable and mention the word phoenix club. It is right therefore that it should stay. What you are trying to do is force your own point of view on the listing which is not acceptable. If you wish to debate the reliability of the sources you need to take it to the article talk page in future, please. Fenix down (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Many rational people would question whether the faux altruiste founders of AFC Wimbledon could be regarded as reliable. However the self-appointed egomaniacs of Wikipedia have allowed themselves to swept up in the tide of emotion which often engulfs such trifling matters. THERE ARE NO ASHES !!90.194.228.58 (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

That's both nonsense and completely irrelevant. The article clearly sources the club being referred to as a phoenix club to three large, reliable national media sources. Fenix down (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There it is again, the assumption that enough people bleating about something will make it become true. You probably need to get out more. 90.194.228.58 (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Whatever, you should read WP:V, there's nothing more really that can be added to this discussion as you clearly don't have anywhere near the required understanding of one of the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia to properly engage. Fenix down (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

As often happens, those in the wrong resort to rudeness. It seems more likely that you're at fault and sadly out of touch with reality.

90.194.228.58 (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Its not a question of fault, it's a question of verifiability, which is why I pointed you in the direction of WP:V. If you read it you would now understand that if you claim AFC Wimbledon not to be a phoenix club you need to show where this can be verified, not simply state it as fact. The fact that you continue to criticise me rather than ground your argument in established p9licies and guidelines confirms you either lack the familiarity with the policy to enter into a worthwhile discussion or you can't be bothered. Either way, I don't see a point in continuing this until you can cite policy or guidelines to support your views and will not enter into any further discussion. Fenix down (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bhutan National League Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bhutan National League Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fenixdown. I think there's a better than average chance that File:BoB National League.png is going to be deleted from Commons. It looks like c:COM:FU and no information is provided that Bhutan Football Federation (which is listed as the author) has agreed to release it under a free license. Normally, I tag such files with c:Template:Logo when I can find them clearly being used online. In this case, however, I could not find the file anywhere online, so I used c:Template:No permission since instead. The file will evenutally be deleted if the uploader is unable to provide verification of the licensing, so you can re-add the non-free if you want or just until the Commons version is wrong. If, by chance, the Commons file's licensing is correct and you know where to find such information, please add it to the file's page and remove the speedy tag I added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi MarchJuly, I think the chance is pretty certain. Given that it contains the Bank of Bhutan logo I can't see how it could be freely licensed. It would be nice to have a higher resolution image though. I'll try to contact the editor and ask where he got it and see if we can upload a properly licensed version to enWiki. In the mean time I have reverted the article to show the old image. Fenix down (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

FC SKA Minsk

Hi. Not arguing with you, but how do you know they are national championships? And what level is that redlinked league? I prodded it, because the way the article reads now I thought it was a local club, and the article just said they were league champions, not national champions, and my searches turned up zero. If you could tell me how you knew those things, it would prevent me from making a similar error in the future. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi RSSSF lists them as national champions. In addition this also shows they played in the Soviet union cup at least once (I haven't looked deeper). Clubs are normally deemed notable if they have competed in a national competition, so even if one were to consider the Belarusian SSR league not a bastion all competition they would still be notable for their cup appearances. Fenix down (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Torns IF

The Torns IF page you keep reverting back to is completely out of date. I just removed all incorrect stuff and have no interest in writing a page with more info. All info regarding what I removed can be found on the clubs official webpage www.tornsif.se, therefore I cannot see the need for additional references (where to?). As the page is now it references an old obsolete webpage at www.tornsif.com so the references I removed are outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.244.120 (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no evidence that this is incorrect without updated sources. If the information you wish to present is on the official club website then you should reference that, not simply remove information. For outdated references, have you tried the internet archive? Some of the information you were removing may have been out of date but was not necessarily irrelevant in the wider context of the history of the club. Fenix down (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The source is the official webpage of the club www.tornsif.se, which is the only reference I left. There you can find things such as coaches for the team: http://www.tornsif.se/grupp/?ID=168227 chairman of the board: http://www.tornsif.se/sida/?ID=168460

Now the info on wikipedia is nonsense, with made up names such as Joachim van Hoobastank, Of course you can find the clubs old webpages in archives but what is the point to claim that there is a "Torn indoor tournament for girls and boys from aged 7 to seniors and veterans at weekends from October to February.[3]" with an archive reference when that tournament has not happened in years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.244.120 (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not nonsense, the manager name aside, which I have removed, it is merely out of date.

The correct way to deal with elements such as "Torn indoor tournament for girls and boys from aged 7 to seniors and veterans at weekends from October to February." is to turn it to the past tense, just because it is on an old website does not mean it is irrelevant to the history of the club.

It is better to have out of date information that hopefully will be updated at some point in the future than have someone like yourself come along and remove it entirely and potentially forever simply because they, as an individual cannot be bothered to do the work to update it. Fenix down (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

OK fine. I added things such as the league from 2013-2017 as found in the reference http://svenskfotboll.se/cuper-och-serier/information/?feid=10074 if one changes year. Also the chairman och coach are incorrect as can be seen on the www.tornsif.se webpage. Now there are references that make no sense but look superficially nice (for example clicking on the references on the webpages now one can follow them and see that Torns IF currently plays in Div 2 Östra Götaland and not Div 2 Södra Götaland). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.244.120 (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Also reference 1 now goes to www.tornsif.com on which it clearly says that it has been replaced by www.tornsif.se. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.244.120 (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that they have a new website is irrelevant, the old one is still live and still a reliable source for historic information. I will unprotect the page, but please note three things:

1. Do not remove historic information from the old website, please simply turn the text to the past tense if it is no longer relevant.
2. For any changes like this or anything referenced to the new site, please provide a clear link to the correct page on the new site
3. Please do not remove things like the attendance section which was referenced correctly to an external source.

Fenix down (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hello Fenix ​​down, I have a question, I need an answer. I create articles on the French wiki. Mainly on football.

For example the last 6 articles that I have built from A to Z, have primary sources as secondary, official, independent, plus newspaper articles coming from several countries of the world. I also upgraded the articles.

I notice one thing, there is a former admininistrator (I do not know if the other administrators give him back as a director) he lays banners of "Eligibility" on all the articles with sometimes reasons that have not No sense, because it is often on criteria that I cited above "sources", while I respect the instructions.

Not long ago, I could see that a director has made a complaint about him because he also amuses himself with banners of "Eligibility" the headlines on the same grounds as the person who made a complaint .

This time the administrators put him "blocked for a duration of 15h" for reason of "FAITH, rules of good manners", some weeks before for "diversion of the PàS" had had no reprimand. From what I could understand this administrator already has a big record(He had only 15h of blocking, mainly because there is too much cronyism between some administrators).

So my question should I remove the headbands that it to post on the articles, knowing that the person who had the same problem with him could have pulled them off. If it is necessary I can show you the 6 articles so that you can better understand. Cordially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EE0E:ABD0:B854:9C74:3C1F:E26D (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can help here. If I understand you correctly you are taking about the French wiki. Different wikis have different rules surrounding notability so what goes on enWiki may well be different on frWiki. Fenix down (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Second question.

I will translate all of you. I created the article "Greenland national futsal team". I translate their conversation: besides the administrator in question is matpib who adds headbands everywhere:

"Futsal National Greenland Team [edit code] Good evening coffee,

I wonder about the eligibility of this article, created by a customary IP of the fact.

Obviously this team is not recognized by FIFA and UEFA, but the main problem seems to be the lack of secondary sources. Axou (discuss) 12 March 2017 with 18:40 (CET)

<Sighs> When is it really going to attack this IP that has only one goal: to make only its head! Matpib (discuss) 12 March 2017 at 19:18 (CET) Perhaps start by passing his non-sourced creations in IF directly until he gets tired? BelgoFoot (discuss) 13 March 2017 at 08:06 (CET) It is very unfamiliar with the gugusse. He drowns his creations in the multiplication of external links, usually pages of results, with the effect of making believe a sourcing. And many contributors often fall into the panel. Matpib (discuss) 13 March 2017 with 19:49 (CET) Block IP? BelgoFoot (discuss) 14 March 2017 at 08:05 (CET) "

Fenix ​​down, to explain, I am dedicated to football NON-FIFA (NF-Board / ConIFA) that I find interesting, there are things to say on it. For example, Greenland has been seeking to become a member of UEFA since 2015. As the Palestine, Gibraltar, Kosovo within UEFA, AFC and FIFA. The lack of secondary source is not a drama, I can improve the article by adding them afterwards. Matbip disrespect me by calling me the "Gugusse", it's a familiar way of saying the clow, jester, guignol, I never allowed myself to call people that way. For his 3 administrators if it is not FIFA, it does not have to be on wikipedia whereas the articles that I could make on the subject are already on the wiki english and in other languages. External links are not just results, there's a lot of stuff about competitions or teams, proof that it does not read external links. Since I do non-fifa, he is looking for a way to forbid me to make articles, sometimes by voting to delete articles as they have already been able to do by passing it. They are becoming more radical, now it's blocking me. I'm on my side, I job the articles, anyway even with good arguments I will always be wrong. Belgofoot for him the NON FIFA, it looks like heresy, while the NON FIFA represents a little more than 350 million humans around the world, is surely more in the coming years, more and more people follow are Kind of event, the media talk about it ten times more than a decade ago. So I need your advice, how do you deal with kind of administrators? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EE0E:ABD0:B854:9C74:3C1F:E26D (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, I'm not too sure I can help here because you are talking about frWiki not enWiki. However I would note on enWiki fits all is not specifically covered by WP:FOOTY. As such players and teams do not have a subject-specific notability guideline and so have to follow GNG. In these instances, Non-FIFA fits all teams are not inherently notable and need to show independent sourcing to satisfy GNG. With little known owl edge of the subject 9f the Greenland national fits all team I couldn't really help but I would doubt there was no much substantial coverage outside of local / Danish language sources. Fenix down (talk) 08:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Recovery request

Hi, could you please move a copy of the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Plessas to my user space? Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you explain why you now think she could be notable. Although there were a number of keep votes, none of these were grounded in policy and my detailed closing rationale was that there was very little of substance out there about her. Did I miss something? We don't normally userfy deleted articles unless the subject is imminently going to meet a guideline and I am not sure this is the case. I'd need to see evidence of GNG before I saw a need to userfy. Fenix down (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not questioning your rationale, because it was fair under the current guidelines. (I think the guideline itself should be changed to close the gap that allows other participants at the 2016 AFF Women's Championship to be automatically notable, but not the Australian players. But I do not wish to expend energy on that.) Although the sources were thin, I spent quite some time finding everything I could and putting it into an actual biography. There are numerous ways that she may satisfy the various guidelines in the future, so it would save time if the deleted version was there to be used. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be best to wait until she either actually passes WP:NFOOTY or sufficient independent sources are created to satisfy GNG. I think it was pretty clear at the AfD that there were basically no significant sources covering this player. As such I think that this article would essentially immediately become stale. This guideline specifically notes for userspace drafts where notability is unlikely to be achieved, consensus is that they should not be kept indefinitely.

As it has already been decided that she us currently not notable I don't see how it would be kept as a draft on anything other than an indefinite basis unless something changes. Rest assured though that if something does change I will happily restore the article either to your userspace if you think she can meet GNG or the main space if she meets NFOOTY.

On your other point regarding making an exception for this youth team appearance in the AFF championship, I do not believe there would be appetite to change a guideline to make an exception here; partly because this is not a unique situation and would need to be applied to all similar team appearances both retrospectively and in future but also because the very fact that Australia sent a junior team in itself underlines that this was a tournament they did not consider that significant. Fenix down (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

AFC Wimbledon

What could be more reliable than the facts ? Remarkably, you've managed to agree with and contradict yourself without realising - I'm sure the other Wikicrats will award a prize for such devotion once they've pulled their pants back up !! 2.216.66.254 (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

What facts? Please read WP:V and pipe down, you're just embarrassing yourself now. The claim that AFC Wimbledon is a phoenix club is supported by three national media sources that all specifically and unequivocally use that specific term. Your personal, and to my knowledge completely unfounded, opinion as you have provided no evidence to support your view, is irrelevant. We are only interested in verifiable sources to support claims. Until you can produce these, there is nothing more to say. Fenix down (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Have you actually read the media articles referenced ? The usually reliable Jim White got a bit misty-eyed but did not use the P-word and it does not seem to have mentioned by the BBC or Daily Telegraph. Who's embarrassed now ? 2.216.66.254 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Er... guess again? I mean, the article even quotes the sources in the reference section. All, three articles specifically mention the club as a phoenix club:

1. BBC: But still AFC Wimbledon, the phoenix club created by fans, are searching for the win that may provide them with the smallest sensation of revenge.
2. Telegraph: Then Steven Gregory, the captain of AFC Wimbledon, the phoenix club born from the most bitterly contested geographical switch in English football history, won the ball on the edge of the home area and unleashed a shot which appeared to be heading for the bottom corner.
3. The Guardian: firstly - Neal Ardley's phoenix club on the rise for FA Cup duel of raw emotion and then - the real Wimbledon, in their view, was wound up in 2004 before fans founded a phoenix club, AFC Wimbledon.

Seriously? Fenix down (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

At the time nobody called it a phoenix club so it hardly seems fair to quote stuff written ex post facto but I suppose you'll feel happier about being proved "right". 2.216.66.254 (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

"At the time" is irrelevant, there's no time limit on this however much you'd like. It is, and always has been, clearly and reliably sourced, with quotes supporting the notion that there is a widespread view that AFC Wimbledon is a phoenix club, so it's not about being proved right as everything needed has always been staring you in the face. Fenix down (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Really, a couple of thousand people is "widespread" ? It is also clear that no ashes exist because the original club still exists. I'm trying to give the article a more balanced tone which readers can understand without wading through the hysterics you insist on peddling. 2.216.66.254 (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

And, as I said repeatedly, if you have reliable sources which state that AFC Wimbledon is not a phoenix club then you should present them and I will unprotect the article so that it can be altered to present a neutral point of view clearly outlining that there are opposing views, not just the view you are trying to push. The only problem with this is that you have no sources, and so per WP:V, you have no case. There is no need to reply to this, and I will not be replying, unless you can provide such sources that clearly show opinion that the club is not a phoenix club. Fenix down (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The majority of sources don't say phoenix but because they don't say non-phoenix that appears to be enough in your mind. A dangerously narrow view is being imposed on the rest of us who want to cut out the emotion in what should be a very mundane subject. Anyway, the last word is mine so I win !! 2.216.66.254 (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

smh. Fenix down (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It does seem that you are deliberately obstructing an attempt to make the article a little more balanced just because it does not fit with your own view. The "Phoenix club (sports)" talk page reference to Washington Senators is extremely apposite as it presents a well-established previous example. 2.125.25.203 (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Aren't you going against Wikipedia protocol by undoing the comments of others ? There seem to be a number of "someones" trying to make this article a bit more grown-up but you're resolutely keeping it in the playground !! 2.218.113.5 (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You've been told repeatedly about WP:V, there are reliable sources that refer to the club as a Phoenix club. These sources are clearly referenced in the article with quotes, it is therefore entirely reasonable that the club should feature in a list of phoenix clubs. Whether you agree with this or not is irrelevant. As the opening sentences of WP:V say: In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. As I have asked before, if you can point me to a reliable source where someone discusses claims that AFC Wimbledon is a Phoenix club and presents evidence to the contrary, please do so and I will unprotect the article so that this verifiable debate can be documented.

Regarding removing comments, please refresh your knowledge of WP:OWNTALK, I am perfectly entitled to remove comments from my own talk page. You on the other hand, have no right to add back other users comments to my talk page. Furthermore, your persistent refusal to provide any sources to support your argument means we are just going round in circles. Please do not reply to this message unless you have the required sources. If you do, I will simply protect my talk page to prevent non-autoconfirmed users from posting as your behavior is now simply disruptive. Fenix down (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Having come across this discussion while taking a break from real-world activities, I hope no one will mind a further contribution. A number of other users are presenting coherent information but you have conflated them as one grand opposition to your viewpoint - this kind of attitude hardly does Wikipedia many favours.

Perhaps the article would look better couched in the following terms:

"Although founded as a reaction to the relocation of what became Milton Keynes Dons, AFC Wimbledon has come to be regarded as a "phoenix" club by some sources."

Finally, to whom is this disruptive other than yourself ? 2.223.177.131 (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

So an unregistered user, who has never edited before from that IP address, just happened to stumble across a thread on a specific user's talk page purely by chance? That is not a likely thing to happen. I am not really happy being stalked by a number of IP editors, either on the article talk page or my own talk page who all geolocate to the same 3-4 mile radius, so I will be protecting my talk page to prevent you from posting here in future unless you are a registered user. That is what is disruptive.

To deal with you point, there is no need for any change to the article, which merely lists clubs reliably sourced as phoenix clubs. It makes no claims that clubs need to be considered this from any specific point in their history, merely that there are reliable, independent sources using that phrase. Furthermore, the official club history could not be clearer that they have always considered themselves to be the spiritual successors of the original club. Fenix down (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

How is it not "stalking" to snoop on the vague locations of one-off editors whose contributions happen to be at odds with your own ? The area they apparently fall into is larger than some small countries !!2.122.30.92 (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bhutan national football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chencho. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Club Tijuana Reserves and Academy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Club Tijuana Reserves and Academy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Tijuana Reserves and Academy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Club Universidad Nacional Reserves and Academy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Club Universidad Nacional Reserves and Academy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Universidad Nacional Reserves and Academy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pheuntsholing FC Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pheuntsholing FC Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Malaysia Super League

Thanks for coming in to help alleviate the situation. I should have looked for an admin but I haven't got the experience so I ended up in combat mode. LordAtlas (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That's no problem, but do be aware please that another admin might well have blocked you too for move warring if they hadn't been aware of the previous discussion about the common name at WT:FOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Some lame curiosity....

Hi, how did you manage to delete the subject of this draft as a hoax 2 years back? Gotcha say the hoax looks somewhat notable now!What's your opinion?Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 11:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, the article was about a "different" Jonathan Montgomery. In this case, a made up Samoan footballer rather than an academic in this instance. Fenix down (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Oops!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I know. A strange coincidence. Fenix down (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Double block for 3RR

Hi, admin, as stated from my talk page which you suggest I 3RR on Malaysia Cup doesn't make sense as you have blocked me twice when I have not engage in any edit after the first 24-hour block (other than clean up read post in my own talk page). JebatMalaya (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, apologies again I thought because the move on the Malaysia cup was reverted after your first block that it had been done once you had returned. However, you should be aware that had I been aware you were engaged in move warring and moving against consensus on more than one article I would have looked on that more seriously and the block would have been for longer than 24 hours. Please therefore take this as a warning that any further move warring or moving against consensus will lead to a block considerably longer than a day. If you wish any to move any article relating to Malaysian football to a local language title, please either start a formal move request on the article talk page or seek consensus at wp:footy. Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Zamalek SC

Why reverted my last fix in the article Zamalek SC???S!lVER M. (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Fenix down see this CAF Clubs of the 20th Century S!lVER M. (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

See this also i was requested one admin to take action he is in way to block i think Last talkS!lVER M. (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I see, the references were badly place. I have edited to remove nicknames not reliably sourced and have realigned the refs so they are clearer. Fenix down (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This looks tricky any one will see this (reverting my edit by an admin) think me as a big vandal but in fact it was misunderstanding by you...misunderstanding can happen everywhere :) S!lVER M. (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it can, I thought that all refs referred to the club of the century nickname. I'lll keep an eye on that in future for any vandals. Fenix down (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Brilliant! S!lVER M. (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Help with a block or any solution

Dear admin please help with this user Islam84 in page Zamalek SC and one admin was going to block me instead hence as he warned many times!Help!S!lVER M. (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Have blocked for 72 hours. Was not aware until I read his talk page how many times and by how many people he had been asked not to add this. I must add though that, whilst I understand your reasons for reverting, another admin may well have felt they had cause for blocking you as well given you have reverted him a number of times over a longer period of time. In future, do try to take disputes to the talk page and if there is no engagement there, to an admin for further action. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Fenix down/sandbox2

Hi Fenix down. Just wanted to let you know you inadvertantly added the non-free File:Cook Islands FA.svg to your user sandbox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi MarchJuly, thanks for letting me know I had completely forgot about that draft. I have removed the logo. Fenix down (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I just came across during some routine checking and figure if was just left in by mistake. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Page protection

I just wanted to give you the heads up that when you protected the pages up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domenic Ando, you seem to have missed Domenic Ando. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks mate, have PP'd now. Fenix down (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of {{Persondata}}

to Hi Fenix down,

I'm the bot who is deleting {{Persondata}}. I noticed your edit on Affize Faisal Mamat in which you added {{Persondata}}. This template is deprecated and deleted. Please stop adding {{Persondata}}. In case you want to support the Persondata project you can help with the migration of the dataset to Wikidata at KasparBot's tool. See Wikipedia:Persondata or contact my operator T.seppelt in case you have any questions.

Thank you very much, -- KasparBot (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nauru national football team logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nauru national football team logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Thimphu League.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thimphu League.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Locking Iranian National Football Team Page

You locked Iranian national football team page right after a vandal Iraqi member is keep adding a POV section under Iran vs Iraq rivalry in football. This feeling is only among Iraqi fans toward Iran national team and if they want to keep it in their page (Iraqi national football team), we, Iranian football fans have no objections but Iraq is not considered as a rival for us under any circumstances. A random article from a Malaysian magazine is not credible enough to add something like this in our national team article in wikipedia. Please consult with few Iranian members here before passing judgement or locking our article. Iraqi football fans have been vandalizing Iranian accounts since 2015. This is a one sided rivalry for them and not us. Please reconsider this or I have to complain to Moderators.--IranianLeague (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a reliable source discussing the rivalry, it is therefore correct that it should be there. You're personal opinion does not matter. The article was locked because editors repeatedly removed reliably sourced information without discussion. Fenix down (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Nauru national football team logo.gif listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nauru national football team logo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

AN/I

The IP editor at Nauru national soccer team does not appear to have notified you that they started a section at AN/I about your semi-protection of the article. The section header is '"Blocked"... for no reason'. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Ethnikos Asteras

Good evening sir. I would like to ask why you revert my addition to that page? Those are all players that played for that team and I beleive that they should be displayed. Thank you for your time.

Hi Manos. There is an agreed Manual of Style for football clubs that clearly states that lists of notable players need clear inclusion criteria (such as played "x" games, made "y" appearances", member of hall of fame, capped internationally, etc). You shouldn't really use the section to list all players who have played for the team. Instead, it is better to use something like {{Category see also|Ethnikos Asteras F.C. players}} which will show a hatnoted link at the top of the section. You can then include specific players below this if you want as long as you include clear inclusion criteria so other editors know why they are there and whether they should add any others at a later date. Fenix down (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Gregory Patrick

Hi you've reverted my CSD edit, but at the same time you agree that the person is not notable. Can you explain your logic? Your argument doesn't make sense at all and is exactly the reason why this discussion was started in the first place: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#The criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not state that at all, please reread the edit summary, what I said was that declining the speedy was not confirmation of notability. I did not feel that it was an A7 because prior to your nomination, the article clearly showed junior international appearances, which, whilst not satisfying WP:NFOOTY, may indicate expansion to show GNG may be possible. Either way, definitely not an A7. I would suggest that it might be better to give an editor more than the 2 minutes you gave after creation before slapping a CSD tag on. Fenix down (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy decline question

Hello. You declined a speedy on VV Eemdijk which has been used by the creator to justify making additional articles on the club teams. I am not questioning your actions but more want to understand your reasoning as I am working on a RFC on the topic and want to make sure I am not missing something.

My understanding is that this team is in the 5th level of Football in the Netherlands and is an armature league. Based on WP:NCLUB criteria these clubs would not be notable without meeting general notability guidelines which as far as I can tell none of these do.

Do you see this differently? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I declined the speedies because the fifth level of football in the Netherlands is still a national competition. General consensus is that clubs playing in national competitions are presumed notable. That may or may not be the case, but there also does seem to be some coverage in Dutch media that might indicate GNG. Certainly there was some attempt to suggest why the club was notable and whether that attempt indicates GNG or a subject specific guideline is not relevant. However it also should not be taken as confirmation that the subject is notable. Fenix down (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Explain yourself

Now would be a good time to explain your understanding of WP:BANREVERT and WP:INVOLVED, the block there will need to be discussed at WP:ANI, but I'd like to hear your position. Kuru (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Re WP:BANREVERT - no evidence provided that the IP is a banned user bar your own statement, no attempt to discuss with IP on talk page or gain wider consensus from other editors on article talk page

Re WP:INVOLVED - irrelevant, I'm not a regular editor of the page, I removed the section unaware that it had been already back and forth a number of times. You were blocked once you removed for a fourth time (again no attempt to discuss) and unblocked once I realized you had self reverted. Fenix down (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The claim is explicit in the block message and in the revert. If you have a counter-position, please feel free to communicate it, or simply ask. You'll be wrong, though. Once you've made a discretionary edit to the article, you are now an editor. To be clear, you're saying that you interpreted this as normal content dispute, which you entered, then blocked when you saw you were reverted? That is your read of WP:INVOLVED? Kuru (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense, You had edit warred with this IP for a number of days on this topic (since there is no indication why this person is a banned user or LTA, I'll call it edit warring until shown evidence otherwise). My revert, given that the IP had given a perfectly reasonable justification for the sections removal, yet you has simply shouted LTA with each revert and made no attempt to discuss on any talk page or support your accusation was, per INVOLVED, therefore entirely administrative.

I felt it was reasonable to assume that the IP's position was justifiable given you had provided no evidence to support your notion that this was a ban revert. However, let us presume that you are correct in your ban revert. I, as an editor in good standing would be perfectly entitled to make the same edit, providing a clear edit summary to support why. What you would not be entitled to do would be to then revert me (again I note providing no edit summary or explanation as to why) per WP:BRD.

It is then reasonable for me to assume that rather than fighting LTA, you are in fact simply edit warring to keep a section of the article in place. That is why you were blocked. You were then unblocked as you self reverted while I was blocking.

Furthermore, per INVOLVED, my prior involvement with this article have been minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias and so they do not make me involved. Fenix down (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It is also worth noting per WP:BANREVERT that the right to break the 3 revert rule does not apply when edits made are obviously helpful changes. The edits in question here removed arbitrary OR with a clear explanation as to why. It is reasonable to assume that this is a helpful edit, so you were not entitled to edit war with the IP. Fenix down (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, you're comfortable asserting that you made your revert because you believed in the content change the IP was making? And when reverted, accidentally or not, you blocked the person you were in a dispute with, even though you were an "editor in good standing" in that article? Do you still assert that you've done no homework here, and that you believe that this is not the long-term abusive editor explicitly named? Kuru (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Yes, there are no inclusion criteria, and no indication why this list of matches should be considered notable. To that extent it is effectively WP:OR, I am perfectly comfortable in removing the section. If the person is indeed a banned user then just so it is fine to remove their edits beyond 3RR, it is also fine for another editor to step in and make the edit if it is constructive. That is what I did and I provided a clear edit summary to indicate why. As such my edit was purely administrative as it was intended to stop the needless back and forth between you and the IP.
2. I have no idea who the supposed LTA is, and frankly I don't care. The edits made were obviously helpful changes and so you had no right to continue to revert them per WP:BANREVERT. (Even if you disagree that they were obvious, the clear edit summaries provided indicated they were potentially helpful to the point that you should have gone to the article talk page for consensus).
3. As I reasonably believed that you had no right to do this, and that you had provided no evidence to support your suggestion that this is an LTA. I felt it acceptable to assume you were edit warring. The fact that you then immediately reverted me without even an edit summary rather than trying to discuss per WP:BRD further supported that opinion
4. Regarding the notion of this editor as an LTA, I see through the history of this article there have been regular little wars over this section. I also see that in every time the IP has made clear edit summaries citing WP:OR or WP:NPOV and has just been overridden each time. Regardless who this IP editor is / was, their edits have clearly been helpful. The historic actions of other editors, not just yourself, of reverting without discussion or even edit summaries are in my opinion what is at fault here. To be honest, I am concerned you were simply reverting because that is what you had always done in the past. I would be interested in why you were reverting. Why did you think that a list of matches deemed notable without any clear inclusion criteria was a helpful addition to the article? Fenix down (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Understood, so after making a significant content decision on the page, and then immediately blocking an editor you are in a dispute with, this may run contrary to WP:INVOLVED? You can't have it both ways. Do you feel that, perhaps, asking or doing your homework before blocking a long term editor may be a more competent course of action? Kuru (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in dispute with you, because as I stated before, per WP:BANREVERT as these were helpful edits removing obvious WP:OR / WP:NPOV (as repeatedly stated over a period of months stated by the IP) you had no right to revert beyond 3RR. The fact that you and other editors had done this repeatedly (unbeknownst to me) before is irrelevant - you were all equally as wrong on previous occasions as you are now. Because you had no right, you were edit warring. The fact that you immediately reverted me merely served to underline the impression that you were edit warring. You may be interested to know I have started a thread here and here to try to gain some consensus on this; something I would have expected an admin as experienced as you to have done a long long time ago per WP:BRD. Fenix down (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Fenix, can you point out the 3RR? You do realize it takes four reverts to breach that policy? By claiming edit warring, you understand that you've blocked an editor that you were in a content dispute with, correct?

Don't try to game this. I used 3RR as a term for edit warring. You have regularly been reverting this, along with a number of other editors. You may only have reverted 3 times in the last 24 hours, but you also reverted the same section on the 19th and made the same reverts back in October last year. At no time have you had the right to do this per BANREVERT for reasons I have repeatedly stated above. Per 3RR, you do not have to revert more than 3 times in 24 hours for it to be considered edit warring.

You really need to answer the following question: regardless of who the original editor was, why have you repeatedly added back content that is clearly in direct violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV?

Sections of "Notable foo" which have no clear inclusion criteria, nor any sourced prose to back up the claim of specific notability are by definition original research and not neutral as it is impossible to ascertain why any element has been included / excluded and what, if anything another edit might add to the section. Unless you can show that this section is not in direct violation of these key policies, then you had no right per BANREVERT, to revert their removal and were therefore edit warring. Fenix down (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

3RR is a specific instance; please do not use it when you're just trying to specify edit warring. I would expect an admin as experienced as you to understand the difference. I take no position your content dispute; you're free to handle the issue at your leisure at this point. Kuru (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)